Should have said, it is a new site and it is slow.  It is towards the bottom of my list.  I find it about the same as bigstock and more than can stock.  I jusst thought it would be good for your direct linked photos (due to high commission and set your own prices) but if you are not getting regular sales aswell, it may take a while to get payout.

Does StockXpert allow single sales - that have more volume plus a 50% payout. 

Likewise 123RF has single sales and a 50% payout (I think they are reducing soon to new comers so get in if you aren't there already - even if you just upload a few to reserve your place) though you also go into their subscription model which you may or may not be happy about (a lot less vloumn that SS).

fotolia only has 33%- 39% payout so not as good as the two mentioned (not sure if they do single sales).

123rf and stockXpert have more volumn that bigstock so not a real option.

Does anyone know that external site that you get per picture sales with SS - though I dont think the payout is good.

The above is based on my experience so depending on your photos, may differ.

Featurepics now allows resizing.  You have to opt in (though this can be done in bulk).    Prices are about 25% for small and 65% for medium.  I say about as i cant work out how they determined the price (they are not round percentages).

I think this is a good thing.  I have now allowed resizing for all my photos but have also increased the price so i get more for a big image and about the same for a medium image.

Hopefully this will drive customers to the site.

Since they are all mulitiples of 7, it is probably just fewer weekends.  Which means that DL are consistant througout the month.

This makes sense.

Just though I would ask as you always see posts on forums about 10 days into the month were people say this is the worst moth ever, then come back later saying it ahs improved.

Does anyone here do video footage?

Is so, iStock have just launched their video footage site.  Have a look here

I think Shutterstock is the only other site doing it.  See here

FT is easy at them moment but this changes a bit.  i think they are gonig a bit easy as they want to get to the 1 million mark (I resubmitted a lot of rejected ones and got them accepted - only ones accepted and sold elsewhere).

Have you tried it yet.

What exactly does it do.� Is it just a photo tracking program like the free software you get with Canon cameras??

Is this going to be a program that costs once it is no longer beta or is it going to be sold/given away in different versions like adobe pdf software.

fintastique

[url = http://put in your url ] put in text [ /url ]� - no spaces

I read good reviews for the hyperdrive when I was looking as it is very quick (2min per gig compared to my 8min per gig).  I couldn 't find it in teh UK though so when for an easier option.

From the other forum:

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php

Quote:

"The U.S. Copyright Office issued its report on Orphan Works only a couple of weeks ago. The end of that report contained proposed language for an amendment to the Copyright Act. That proposal is now being fast-tracked in Washington with a good chance of passage before the end of this Session. In my opinion, if that language is enacted in its current form, it will be the worst thing that has happened to independent photographers and other independent visual artists since Work Made for Hire contracts.

Orphan works are basically works whose copyright owners cannot be located. The term "Orphan Works" is really a dangerously misleading phrase. It makes it sound as if it includes only a few works that are not valued enough by their creators to warrant taking care of them. That may be true for owners of many kinds of copyrights. However, the reality is that for independent photographers and illustrators, the majority of your published photographs may well become Orphan Works. The reason for that is that, unlike just about every other category of copyrighted works, photographs and illustrations are typically published without any copyright notice or credit to the photographer or illustrator. The one exception to that has traditionally been editorial uses, but even there the trend seems to be away from providing credit lines. As more and more photographs are published on the Internet, credits become even rarer. Worse, even if you registered your photographs at the Copyright Office, there is no mechanism for identifying you or your photograph or for locating you through those records, if the user does not know your name.

Under the proposed legislation, a person or other entity who wants to use a copyrighted work is required to make only a "good faith, reasonably diligent search" to locate the copyright owner. If, after making such a search, the user is unable to locate the copyright owner, he/she/it gets an almost free license to use the work. If the copyright owner never comes forward, the user gets to use the work for free. Even if the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, the MOST the copyright owner can get is "reasonable compensation," i.e. a reasonable license fee for the use actually made. There is NO possibility of statutory damages or attorneys' fees, even if the work was registered before the use was made without your permission.

Wait, it gets worse: If the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, "where the infringement is performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, such as through the sale of copies or phonorecords of the infringed work, and the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after receiving notice of the claim for infringement, no award of monetary relief shall be made."

The fact that the potential compensation is so low presents a fatal impediment to collection: if you discover one of your works being used and demand only your reasonable licensing fee, but the person refuses to pay, you cannot afford to sue to collect the minimal amount to which you are entitled. Without the possibility of an award of attorneys' fees or statutory damages, no lawyer would take your case; and if he or she did, you would end up paying far more legal fees than you could possibly collect.

The bottom line is that, even if you have done everything right, including registering your photographs immediately at the Copyright Office, every photograph that you publish may be up for grabs if it doesn't have a published credit. Yes, people have to contact publishers to try to identify and locate you, but if that doesn't produce your name and/or contact information for any reason, they may be entitled to a free, or almost free, pass."

This is a concern.  Has anyone heard of the "orphan image" rules that they are trying to indroduce to US copywrite legislation.

I saw it on another forum (yes I am a forum whore).  Dont have time to post now but will come later.

Basically, if they cant find the owner of an image, they can use it without payment.

I think this is the problem with PS - It is just too powerful and for someone like me who doesn't even do it part time (I just use crop, levels saturatation and clone), I am never going to understand.

Hmmm.  Without trying that,  I have no idea how making a duplicate layer makes the picture lighter.  Surly choosing blend loan alone isn't enough?

I will try it but I think it does need a bit more explaination.  If a person understands it, they can use it better than if they are just following something that they know works.

If I knew which photo, i could tell you.  Either taken with a 5mp ixus or a 8mp 20D.  I rarely crop.

It must have been a 3 token purchase though.

Re watermarks - they have a very fine watermark that I agree hardly shows up sometimes so maybe this needs to be darkened??  I like the skicky in the corner though, nice touch but with the quality of the photos, that isn't enough (can be cropped out) if the watermark is to faint to be scene.  Minor gripe only.